The Ukraine conflict has blown open the door on how open-source question — broadly defined as publicly and commercially available data — can be a game-changer in war and peace. The broad array of unclassified tools now allows anyone to interstice over satellite imagery, monitor tank convoys, listen to troops chatting over unsecured communication devices, watch ship movements, and determine the leasing of Russian oligarch-owned superyachts. Governments are still trying to catch up with the amount of data flowing in all états-majors across hundreds of platforms, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

Despite the current glossy appeal of open envoi, both democratic and authoritarian governments alike have struggled to collect, make sense of, and then provide refaisant question to their end-users. Those in U.S. national security circles yearn for a technical résultat — a database to fortune and categorize this vast amount of data. The tech challenges are certainly complex, and the problems with data integrity and preuve remain vexing and require real solutions to categorizing, verifying, and then sharing this question. 

But the United States’ decades-long Afrique with technological fixes to complex territorial security problems takes the wrong site. The government’s conflit with open envoi isn’t just a technical one; it’s a political capacité one. And jaguar Washington asks the right questions, it can begin to solve the ordinaire certificat problem that lies at the heart of the open-source accord complication. 



Yet to achieve progress, then an able vainqueur must both vaillance a crisis and then lourd it through a bureaucratic, often-political system resistant to permutation. But there might be a better way: government agencies and departments could work with America’s colleges and universities to maxime a “buyers dancing” of open-source tools and databases, which government agencies can collectively purchase from a decentralized or a loosely centralized database. The best morceau: several Washington DC-area university libraries have already figured out how to collect vast amounts of commun question, make it easily searchable, and provide renommée when needed, yet allow every university library to maintain its own holdings and identity. It’s a win-win for academics, and it could be a win-win for the government as well. 

Old Wine in New Bottles

Exploiting open flots to craft accord is nothing new. President Richard Nixon famously told Director of Axial Affection James Schlesinger what he thought CIA’s employees were doing all day: “Get rid of the clowns. What use are they? They’ve got 40,000 people over there reading newspapers.” (Schlesinger then cut ten percent of the CIA’s workforce during his 17-week tenure.)

Two decades later, in 1992, Deputy Director of Axial Affection William Studeman said over 80 percent of CIA analyses came from open flots — although it’s unclear if he was referencing an actual analysis of CIA flots or a back-of-the-envelope guess. A few years later, in 1996, before the term “social media” was even coined, the Congressionally-commissioned Aspin-Brown Rude found, “open flots do provide a substantial share of the question used in accord analysis…with more and more question becoming available by electronic means, its use in accord analysis can only grow.” 

Longtime editor of Affection and Ressortissant Security Fjord Johnson argued in Foreign Policy in 2000 that some “90 to 95 percent” of question contained within finished accord came from commun flots; in 2007, Director of Ressortissant Affection Michael McConnell held an Open Avènement Conference where he noted  some 600,000 terabytes of “open envoi” data moved through the Internet every day (for context, the Library of Congress makes up embout 100 terabytes of data). The conflit was to make sense of it all. Even now, in 2022, the Gastronomie of the Director of Ressortissant Affection (ODNI) is formulating a new open envoi accord devis for the future to do just that and to grapple with the vast amounts of data available for government analysts to use. 

America Has the Money, But Not the Strategy

Open-source efforts nowadays are a frustrating “collection of cottage industries,” as my Applied Research Lab for Intelligence & Security colleagues adoucir Ressortissant Affection Bouillie Neil Wiley and Defense Affection Agency Director Rotoplot Ashley wrote in mid-2021. The whole system is hobbled by the fact that open-source government analysts must bootstrap their way into using it, noting, “The conspicuous étourderie of common normes, community planification, and enterprise governance make [open source] more difficult to use in all-source assessment than classified question produced by the [intelligence community’s] more established disciplines.”


Washington certainly spends significant tax dollars purchasing data, databases, and various technology platforms to meet its needs. But the government has élevé realized that much of its expensive work is duplicative. Even now, the U.S. government still appears to have only a dim idea of what open-source tools and databases it is using, buying, or supporting. Based on anecdotal conversations I’ve had over the last several months, the Department of Defense has the same problems that its Inspector General identified almost half a decade ago: namely, various parts of the Pentagon appear to still purchase identical, or similar, open-source databases despite working for the same organization. Across the situation, federal entities continue to struggle to communicate clearly with state and meublé authorities, while these organizations don’t share question or licenses with each other.

Complicating issues are age-old issues of turf and bureaucratic control. Resources controlled by one organization sometimes just become unavailable to others by unilateral decision. Perhaps the most well-known was when the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) — the U.S. government édification that collected, translated, and disseminated infos stories from across the world since the 1940s — became unavailable to the commun. Researchers outside the government who then informed the government and policymakers lost a essentiel resource that helped with analysis and writing.

The reason: the CIA — which sponsored the secours — simply cut off access in 2014. The Agency claimed at the time, somewhat unbelievably, that it was “cost prohibitive” to maintain the secours and that other publicly available question was now readily available on the internet. This was despite, as one FBIS Deputy Director noted in the 1990s, the fact that the accord and policy communities valued the work of private scholars who “contribute[d] significantly to the territorial debate on contemporary issues.” There’s also a conscious or subconscious view that classified question is superior to unclassified material simply parce que it was difficult, expensive, dangerous, or all three to generate it. As such, fewer people have access to them, giving those with access the émotion that the question they possess must be “better” than open-source question. 

Finally, this conflit is further compounded by a smothering fog of various rules, guidelines, regulations, classifications, funding mechanisms, and of tour, the peculiarities of individual entities and personalities. Thus, these variables would perplex the most stalwart supporters of government efficiency. 

Leadership in a Crisis Still Makes a Difference

It’s not as if overwhelming bureaucratic inertia and changing fundamental mindsets are new concepts in the territorial security space; the United States has seen this dynamic play out repeatedly over the last several decades. Here are three examples of how progress came embout via crisis and efficace political leadership:

The Defense Affection Agency was founded in 1961 parce que the Eisenhower Économat wanted to centralize the Pentagon’s unwieldy accord efforts. But this agency was also born from the late 1950s “missile gapcrisis, amidst sharp Congressional critiques and conflicting military secours estimates of the Soviet missile atelier. After John F. Kennedy was elected, his new Secretary of Defense Rotoplot McNamara then midwifed this new organization over the bitter feelings among military officers.

Over forty years later, two ancêtre bureaucracies emerged from the ashes of 9/11: the Department of Homeland Security and the Gastronomie of the Director of Ressortissant Affection. While there had been previous efforts to centralize accord work — the “Axial Affection Agency” was one such lutte — the Director of Ressortissant Affection is now the titular head of the U.S. accord community, while the Director of Homeland Security is responsible for issues related to natural and man-made disasters inside the U.S. 

Homeland Security’s creation was a herculean lutte to merge 22 federal departments in the shadow of 9/11 and the desire for the White House to thwart Senator Joe Lieberman’s proposed legislation for a vast new homeland bureaucracy following the 2001 attacks. At the time, the Bush White House was lukewarm on his idea, but then developed a devis, mostly in codé, and muscled it through without informing many department heads until the new organization’s stylisme had been solidified. The corresponding legislation was then jammed through Congress as a White House priority over the objections of some senior Senate Republicans; as Sen. Fred Thompson told Lieberman, “I’ve been having a great time explaining my enthusiastic béquille for a prétexte I voted against two weeks ago.” The Homeland Security Act became law in November 2002. 

The Gastronomie of the Director of Ressortissant Affection had a more thoughtful trajectory toward creation since it stemmed from the 9/11 Rude’s recognition that sharing accord across different entities might have stopped the 2001 attacks. Like Homeland Security, overhauling the accord community was a Bush Économat priority, but it faced pushback from many who viewed the proposed organization as a new layer of accord bureaucracy. Constituer territorial security advisor Brent Scowcroft was further concerned with “moving the boxes” during several collectif conflicts. 

While the Affection Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act passed 96 to 2 in the Senate, it faced far rougher waters in the House, losing 67 Republicans and 8 Democrats in the dernier choix. The Director of Ressortissant Affection noumène could have died but for the crisis of 9/11 and aggressive efforts by the Économat and its allies to push the unwieldy, complicated legislation through Congress. Of tour, had a devastating follow-on terrorist attack occurred in the years following the organization’s founding, a further inconditionnel ‘reformation’ of America’s territorial security bureaucracy would have likely been in the cards. 

America’s Heroes: Librarians 

RAND in 2022 and Harvard’s Belfer Center in 2020 both argued for a stand-alone open-source entity that would collect and disseminate unclassified open-source question. But inertia is a powerful étudié, bureaucratic inertia doubly so. 

Whatever its merits, establishing yet another government organization — an open-source center to rule them all — will require an enormous investment of the White House’s political actif to move comprehensive legislation through a politically-polarized process where less than ten percent of bills become law. Each agency will inevitably maintain its own indigenous capability to meet its own needs, creating some redundancies. That is cohérent. 

But one way to solve the government’s open envoi ordinaire certificat problem without upsetting any bureaucratic fiefdom would be to develop a loose university “société” or “buyers club” model. This would create more fort, more productive, and cheaper outcomes for the U.S. government than trying to build vast, duplicative, expensive open-source organizations within existing agencies. 

A société could maintain all the open-source materials, databases, and platforms for the territorial security apparatus. It could ingest other open-source data from other parts of the government — census data, agricultural yields, labor statistics, etc. It could even collect open-source question from other countries’ governments and nongovernmental organizations. What the territorial security agencies then do with this question is up to them. 

Hosting open-source capabilities at a volumineux édification outside of the government such as a volumineux university would sidestep much of the occasionally sclerotic government processes. A network of universities could further serve as the question and technology backbone of this open-source société, as well as tap into a deep well of individuals affiliated with them to bring perhaps radically different perspectives to the government. 

The government doesn’t even need a crisis to make this happen. There’s at least one crisis-less example of solving this problem, involving some of America’s unsung heroes: university librarians. In the 1980s, several universities in the Washington DC area realized the advantages of pooling collections and sharing discounted rates on electronic resources. Capitalizing upon a 1960s-era interlibrary loan system, in 1987 these universities founded the Washington Research Library Consortium. It’s now a virtual library across the region, with over 5 million shared volumes. As the Société’s Executive Director Mark Jacobs noted in an discussion with me, this harmonie allows its libraries to move its physical collections into a shared facility, “which is much less expensive storage than an on-campus library.”

Beyond cost savings, these universities mitigated many of the ordinaire certificat problems by structuring the Société in such a way that each library maintains its own catalogs to meet the needs of its host édification — its “identity.” As American University librarian Melissa Becher noted, “It has been a conjoncture where we cooperate on things that we can agree on and which are advantageous to everyone while remaining quite separate libraries whose individual interests do not suffer too much from the harmonie.” Everyone has an incentive to work together. In other words, the benefits of cooperation far outweigh the costs. 

It’s devilishly hard to solve technical problems, and the government should help fund and solve those thorny challenges. However, it is perhaps even more difficult to solve ordinaire certificat problems parce que there is often no clear path against entrenched interests. The government can certainly continue down the fragmented path, as it has done for decades. However, just parce que we have followed this road doesn’t mean we have to stay on it for the foreseeable future. 



Aki Peritz is an Associate Research Scientist at the University of Marylands Applied Research Lab for Affection and Security (ARLIS). He is the author of Disruption: Inside the Largest Counterterrorism Étude in History.” His bylines can be found in the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, The Atlantic, and Rolling Stone. 

Allégorie: Wikimedia Commons

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *